those cruel Opiniators be justly termed Step-fathers of Infants as St. Augustin was named Durus Pater Infantum SECT XI Of Transubstantiation Qu. 1. SInce the most eminent of the Roman School-men such as Scotus Durandus Alphonsus a Castro Suarez Vasquez Alliado Biel Canus Occam Cajetan and Bellarmine himself confess that the Doctrine of Transubstantion cannot be evidently proved from Scripture and that there is no absolute necessity of understanding our Saviour's Words in that Sense may it not be pertinently demanded is there not a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise seeing that strange Sense is so directly repugnant to the Senses of all that are endued with an animal Life 2. Since there be so many parallel places in Scripture which every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal and absurd Sense as where the Lamb is called the Passover Circumcision God's Covenant the Church Christ's Body the Rock which followed the Israelites called Christ Christ calls himself the Door the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumphed in if he had said this is my true Body wherefore may we not also understand these Words This is my Body in a Metaphorical Sense especially considering that it is impossible to make Sense of the whole Words of the Institution without more Figures than one 3. Can it rationally be presumed that any sensible Man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded on these Words This is my Body would upon reading the Institution of the Eucharist ever have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in these words but rather that this Bread signifies my Body and this Cup my Blood and this which ye see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me Far less would it have entred into any Mans Mind not blinded with gross Error or Prejudice to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his Hand and did eat himself and that he gave away himself from himself with his own Hands especially if it be further considered that our Saviour having pronounced these words This is my Body which is broken and my Blood which is shed before his Passion this could not be true in a literal Sense for his Body was then unbroken and his Blood unshed unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered Nor could the Apostles understand these words literally since they both saw and tasted what he gave them to be Bread and Wine and that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given Whence any rational Man may infer that St. Augustin's Phrase in his Enarrations on the Psalms Christus portavit se manibus suis is to be understood figuratively according to his own Rule for interpreting Scripture given Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 16. 4. May not the Church of Rome as well conclude from 1 Cor. 10. 17. that all Christians are substantially changed into one Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by the participation of the Sacrament because they are said to be one Bread and one Body as to infer Transubstantiation from the Verse immediately foregoing or from any other place of Scripture 5. Suppose Iustin Martyr who lived An. 150. Ireneus who lived An. 180. Tertullian who lived An. 206. Origen who lived An. 230. St. Cyprian who lived An. 250. Theodoret who lived An. 450. P. Gelasius who also lived in the Fifth Century and Facundus the African Bishop who lived in the Sixth had not written any thing against Transubstantiation as it is simply impossible to make sense of their Writings if they believed that Doctrine and not to speak of many other Testimonies of St. Augustin against Transubstantiation I would demand if any Man in his right Wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered such a Testimony against it as we find lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 16. already cited where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If says he the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous Crime or commanding us to do good it is not figurative but if it seem to command any heinous wickedness or to forbid that which is profitable to others its figurative for Example Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you this seems to command an heinous Wickedness therefore it s a Figure commanding us to Communicate of the Passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us 6. Since Bellarmin in lib. descript Eccles. an 118. tells us that Paschasius Rabertus Abbot of Corbey was the first who did write seriously concerning the Truth of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist it may be demanded very pertinently if any of the Fathers before him wrote in jest concerning such a sublime Mystery 7. Since some of the Fathers have as high Elegies of the Sacrament of Baptism as of the Eucharist notwithstanding the Popish Schoolmen grant there is no substantial Change made in that consecrated Water and yet that the Divine Blessing accompanying the Institution it may be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration what reason can be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divine Blessing accompanying this Institution make all the worthy Receivers Partakers of all the Spiritual Comfort designed to us thereby without any substantial Change made in those Elements since our Saviour hath told us that verily the Flesh profiteth nothing 8. If the Canibals be abhorred as Inhuman for eating the Flesh of their Enemies must it not be great Inhumanity to eat the Flesh of a Friend and the best in the World If none can read without horrour the Stories of Tereus Thyestes and Harpagus their eating of their own Children though ignorantly how much more horrible must it be to feed upon the very Body of the Son of God that was Born of the Virgin knowingly Deum suum primo conficiunt deinde devorant said Averrhoes justly deriding that prodigious Doctrine which a little before his time began to be publickly taught in the Roman Church and with what Face could the Primitive Apologists upbraid the Heathen with one of their Gods who did eat his own Children if the Christians had believed at that time that they did Eat their own God and that no such thing being then objected by the Pagans to the Christians is to a Wise Man instead of a Thousand Demonstrations that no such Doctrine was then believed for the Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing as it is believed and practised in the Roman Church is not in truth extenuated but only the appearance of it by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine for the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe they verily
spilling of the Blood of Christ may it not pertinently be demanded Wherefore may not Laicks in this Age have as steddy hands as the Ages foregoing that Council Or if Priests are the best Supporters of a Chalice Why may they not hold the Cup to Peoples Heads as well as put the Bread into their Mouths Not to speak of that Infallible Prescience Christ behoved to have of that imaginary Inconvenience if we believe him to be God as well as Man. 3. Since it is also one of the Reasons assigned by Gerson wherefore the Council of Constance prohibited the Cup to the People lest the Consecrated Wine long kept should be converted into Vineger How can that Fear consist with Transubstantiation for it is not Blood but Wine which turns into Vineger 4. With what Effrontory can any Romanist pretend that the words of St. Iohn chap. 6. are to be understood of the Eucharist since the Mutilation of that Sacrament is thereby expresly condemned for a Man cannot be said to drink when he eats 5. Since the Eucharist is an Emblem of the Effusion of Christ's Blood How can they be said to drink of that Cup which is the New Testament of Christ's Blood shed for us who do not drink at all Suppose there was Truth in Transubstantiation and in that of Concomitancy first divised by Th. Aquinas 6. Since the natural Abstemiousness of some Men is likewise assigned as a Reason of that Sacrilegious Mutilation may it not pertinently he demanded Why is not the Bread taken away also because some Persons have been found who could never tast of any kind of Bread 7. It it may be farther enquired if it were a civil Apology at an ordinary Feast when there are very many invited that the Host should say He had provided neither Bread nor Wine in regard one of the Guests cannot taste of the former and another cannot drink of the later 8. Since it 's impossible to produce one Instance from any Authentick Record for a Thousand Years after Christ and more of the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Face of any particular Church without giving the Consecrated Cup to all the Communicants doth it not evidently follow that the Catholick Church behoved to have been in an Error so long or that the present Roman Church hath degenerated from the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church for so many Ages SECT III. Their with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks Quest. 1. SInce there is no Christian Church unless it be a Society of Blasphemers under the Notion of a Church that pretends to more Infallibility than Christ and his Apostles Upon what account should the Roman Church require more implicit Faith from its Members than Christ and his Apostles did from their Hearers For notwithstanding these were unquestionably endued with an infallible Spirit and the Gift of Miracles yet they still remitted their Hearers to the search of the Old Testament that they might find by their own Reason and Industry the Doctrine of the Gospel consonant to the Prophetick Oracles and Mysterious Types of our Saviour's Incarnation and Passion and were commended for doing so 2. If the Scriptures are so unintelligible that an honest man cannot find out the meaning of them without the Infallible Interpretation of the Church even in those things which are indispensably necessary to our Salvation for we are still ready to say with one of the Ancient Fathers That as they have Flats wherein a Lamb may wade so they have Depths wherein an Elephant may swim I would desire to know whether Christ and his Apostles preached intelligibly to their Hearers If not to what purpose did they preach at all By what means were Men converted to the Faith If they did How came these Sermons to be so unintelligible now they are written which were so intelligible when they were spoken For the Gospels contain a plain History of what Christ did and said and the Apostles wrote the same things to the Churches when they were absent which they preached to them when they were present and we reasonably suppose that they designed that the Churches should as much understand what they wrote as what they preached and therefore that they generally used the same Form of Words in their Writings and in their Preachings and this makes it a great Riddle How one should be very plain and easie to be understood and the other signifie nothing without an Infallible Interpreter 3. Where the Turkish Alcoran is permitted in English viz. at Rome Vid. Indic Libr. prohibit Alexandr 7. and the Bible in English ordained to be burnt vid. ibid. Whether do they fancy the Gospel or Alcoran better 4. Why may not an implicit Faith in the Scripture save a Soul as well as in the Church and why may not the one free from Heresie as well as the other 5. Since our Saviour recommended the reading of the Scriptures to Laicks and the Apostle St. Paul commended them for doing so and that the Primitive Fathers pressed it as a Duty on all Ranks of Persons Must not the Reasons of the Roman Church in prohibiting the Laicks to read the Word of God or to have the Bible translated into their Mother Tongue be exceedingly weighty if they can preponderate all these Authorities 6. Since it is well known from Ecclesiastical and Secular History that the greatest Heresies and Schisms in the Christian Church and which gave it the greatest and most lasting Trouble had their Rise from Men in Holy Orders who were accounted great Clerks in their time such as Marcion Paulus Samosatenus Arius Eunomius Apollinaris Macedonius Photinus Nestorius Eutiches Pelagius and many others Novatius also and Donatius who rent the Catholick Church by long lasting Schisms were Men in Holy Orders not to speak of Lucifer and Meletius Is it therefore a solid Reason to with-hold the Scripture from the ignorant Laicks for fear of their broaching Herefies or Schisms seeing the sad Experience of the World doth rather teach that the learned Clergy should be restrained therefrom SECT IV. The Adoration of Images Qu. 1. DOth not the Roman Church in picturing of God not only act directly contrary to Sacred Scripture where it is so frequently forbidden but also to the very Nature of God who is an infinite Spirit and can no more be represented by a bodily Shape than a Thought can And how can their Practice be re reconciled to that Canon of their Second Council of Nice which determined it not only unlawful but also absurd and impossible to make an Image of that Being which is spiritual invisible and incomprehensible 2. If any Man can reconcile the Worship of Images to the Second Commandment may it not also be imagined that he can make Adultery Perjury Murther Theft and False-witnessing to become Vertues 3. How can any Man that hath the use of Reason imagine that the Antients were clear for the Worship of Images since it is most apparent from the Writings of the most
Eat and Drink the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ And suppose a man should eat his Son in a Pasty where the Figure of the Body is so altered that it cannot be easily known to be human Flesh or so minced and aromatized that the Taste can no more discern what it is than Minodoe could tell of what Ingredients the fifty Dishes at the Mogul's Table were compounded though his Curiosity led him to taste of them all yet if the Father know it it can no ways excuse him from unnatural Barbarity 9. How can any Romanist ascertain himself free of Idolatry without Divine Revelation For if Transubstantiation be not true by their own Confession they are certainly guilty of the most damnable Idolatry in the World in Worshiping a piece of Bread as God and suppose such a change could be they can never be certain that it is since according to the Councils of Florence and Trent the Validity of the Consecration depends on the Intention of the Priest which cannot be known assuredly without Divine Revelation neither is it sufficient to excuse them from Idolatry that they intended to Worship God and not a Creature for so all the Idolatry that ever was in the World may be excused which was nothing else but a mistake of the Deity and upon that mistake a Worshiping of something that was not God as God. 10. Suppose a Miracle were produced to prove the Truth of Transubstantiation may it not be demanded to what purpose is that production seeing we cannot believe the Miracle unless it be obvious to some of our Senses and then the Argument for Transubstantiation and the Objection against it would just ballance one another so that in this case a Miracle would signifie nothing because that would be to prove to a man by something that he sees that he does not see what he sees 11. If the Senses of all mankind may be deluded what Evidence have we for the Passion and Resurrection of Christ Suppose we had seen them with our Eyes and not only heard of them with our Ears for if in the matter of Bread and Wine all our Senses save one are deceived why might not one have been deluded in reference to the Humiliation and Exaltation of Christ so that we might have as easily mistaken an Image for a living man upon the Cross as to imagine a piece of Bread to be the true Body of a man and that a living Human Body is to be found in every Atome thereof 12. Whereas it s said in the Institution that Christs Body is broken for us and yet the Doctrine of the Roman Church is that it is broken into Wholes and not into Parts doth not this clearly imply a Contradiction that Christ's Body is broken and not broken at the self same time or that it is whole and not whole 13. Doth it not involve horrible Impieties to imagine that the glorified Body of our Saviour should be contracted to the Crum of a Wafer That he should be perfectly deprived of Sense and Reason That he should not be able to defend himself against the Assaults of the most contemptible Vermine That if the Stomach of the Communicant chance to be overcharged with Wine that he should be Vomited up again or if he have a Lienteria that he should go wholly to the Draught 14. Since the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. tells us expresly That the Fathers did eat the same Spiritual Meat and Drink the same Spiritual Drink which we do may it not be pertinently demanded if the Manna and Rock which followed them were Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ Or may not Believers under the Gospel feed upon Christ in a Spiritual and Mystical Sense as the Fathers did under the Law without any Transubstantiation of the Elements 15. Since our Saviour Iohn 6. saith That he who Eats his Flesh and Drinks his Blood hath Eternal Life how can this be applyed to Transubstantiation unless any be so absurd as to imagin That all who partake of those Consecrated Elements shall be saved 16. Since the Cartesian Philosophers have by irrefragable Reasons demonstrated that the Nature of all real Bodies must needs consist in extension or as they phrase it the having partes extra partes it being simply impossible to conceive an indivisible Atome or least particle of matter which is laid on a plain to touch it in all parts but that the Superiour Portion thereof must be without the contact of that plain where there is no penetration if therefore Christ's Body be reduced to an indivisible point by Transubstantiation it may be pertinently demanded if this Opinion doth not reduce the Body of Christ to the Nature of a Spirit and consequently is a worse Heresie than the Phantastical Body of the Marcionites 17. Since divers of the ancient Fathers improved the Doctrine of the Eucharist in order to the Confutation of the Eutychian Heresie had it not been perfect non-sense in them to have avowed from such a Topick if they had believed Transubstantiation which did apparently afford a great Instance to the Eutychians against them SECT XII Of the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. Qu. 1. SInce in a true Sacrifice the Thing sacrificed must be destroyed and if it have Life it must be killed it may be demanded if Christ be truly and properly Sacrificed as the Romanists will have it is he not truly and properly put to Death as oft as the Priest says Mass which is directly contrary to Heb. 10. 11. Cap. 2. Whereas the Apostle argues the perfection of Christ's Sacrifice above those of the Law because those were offered year by year but the Sacrifice of Christ's Body was offered once for all if Christ be daily Sacrificed in the Mass must not the Sacrifice of Christ be much more defective than those of the Law since one Sacrifice of Expiation for the whole Congregation of Israel was thought sufficient for the whole year whereas the Sacrifice of Christ's Body is repeated every day yea for one single person he may be Sacrificed a Thousand times over if we may believe the Doctrine of that Church 3. How could that be a Propitiatory Sacrifice at the first Institution which was previous to Christ's Death unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered though with divers of the ancient Fathers we are still ready to acknowledge the Eucharist to be a Commemorative Sacrifice and its possible that the Error of the Romanists had its rise therefrom SECT XIII Of private Masses Quest. IS it possible to reconcile the Solitary Mass wherein the Priest Comumnicates alone after he hath Consecrated to the Institution of Christ the practice of the Primitive Church or with the very nature and intendment of that Sacrament or with the Roman Office as it now stands or if there can be any instance given of Solitary Masses before Gregory the Great dyed which was 600 years after Christ SECT XIV Of the Sacrament of Penance